If I were to pick one area of controversy that generates more emotional attachment and pseudo science, it would be the comparison of artificial sweeteners with sugar.
It is immensely popular, especially if you represent alternative medicine as I do, to say that artificial sweeteners are evil, wicked, mean and nasty.
Let me warn you that I am going to be brutal in my approach today and that when the smoke clears, there is still going to be some low hanging fog!
Let me begin by asking you this question: How do you feel about artificial sweeteners and why do you feel that way?
Before I go any further, let me say first that I am not trying to convince you or change your mind. I am merely going to present the facts as I see them.
Here they are:
1) Artificial sweeteners have been linked to hundreds of different human illnesses via personal complaints to the FDA.
2) Artificial sweeteners have been linked in some lab studies to serious illnesses in lab animals (rats) like cancer.
3) The doses used in those studies exceed the reasonable human consumption limit by hundreds to thousands of times and produce cancer in rats that have been inbred for over 40 years, ultimately causing them to have a higher cancer rate to begin with.
4) No clear well controlled human studies have proven any link to any serious disease from any artificial sweetener. EVER.
5) Aspartame is the culprit in over 75% over the food additive complaints reported to the FDA. Cited side effects range from seizures and death to Gulf War Syndrome, hair loss, and 90 different types of complaints!
6) These complaints are not scientifically proven or investigated for validity. There are basically people calling or writing saying "aspartame caused me to have a problem". Anyone can report a complaint and no one is required to prove its validity.
I promise you there is no death certificate anywhere that lists "NutraSweet" as the cause of death!
7) In spite of their completely diverse and unrelated chemical nature, the complaints lodged against all artificial sweeteners are strikingly similar. Most common are headaches, GI intolerance, memory, brain and personality disorders, and of course, cancer.
8) No one is "For" artificial sweeteners. Only "against" them. The 50 + million people who use them on a yearly basis in this country do not come to their aid or defend them against their critics; they just keep quietly using them! A far smaller but far more vocal minority slams them with tremendous vehemence.
9) Artificial sweeteners did not make anyone fat. EVER. No matter what some supposed studies say. If you look at the test subjects, they were all overweight to begin with. Sorry, but the general rule is: If you are overweight, you are likely to continue the behaviors that got you there in the first place. You know…the ones that were not controlled in the studies (what you ate and drank besides diet soda).
By now you probably realize that I don't oppose the use of artificial sweeteners. You may think that means I support their use. Not so fast, because there’s more to consider.
Remember those big studies I told you about that showed that the artificial sweeteners we use here in the U.S. are safe? Well, they were done by the sweetener manufacturers, which automatically open them up to biased results.
Keep in mind that these studies cost big bucks, so the companies are not likely to repeat them. After all, they got the results they wanted.
A similar, large well-designed highly controlled study run by an independent agency that has nothing to gain but has to spend millions is not likely to ever happen.
So what proof do we really have they are safe? We have the fact that 50 million people use them without complaints every year. That is a pretty big study!
Now here is some more food for thought: Let's look at sugar, especially refined table sugar.
1) It started the slave trade in the western hemisphere
2) It has been directly linked to diabetes and obesity
3) It causes tooth decay
4) Before the 1600's, few cultures used sugar
5) Sugar has been reported as 200x more addictive to the human brain than cocaine
Ultimately, the human body does not need highly refined sugar OR artificial sweeteners. There are plenty of naturally occurring substitutes for sugar you can use if you want, like Stevia.
So, let’s be clear that the overconsumption of refined sugar poses a very clear and well documented danger compared to artificial sweeteners.
Thursday, April 10, 2008
Saturday, April 5, 2008
Weight Training Versus Cardio for Fat Loss
It’s time for me to weigh in on a very hot and controversial topic…which is better for fat loss - weight training or cardio?
The real answer is that it depends on your definitions of cardio and weight training.
Once these are established, there really is no controversy.
For opening arguments, let's define each of them in a traditional manner.
We'll say weight training is a typical hypertrophy/strength program centered on barbells and dumbbells with the desired end result being to build lean muscle as opposed to pure strength (low reps/high weights) or neuromuscular strength and coordination as in Olympic weight lifting.
In this definition, we can include some power moves like squats, bench presses, lat pull downs, bent over rows, biceps and triceps work, and even a few compound moves like power cleans or clean and presses. We'll set our rep range to 12 and do 3 to 4 sets of each for a total time of one hour, 3 to 4 times a week.
Split routines fit nicely into this definition.
For cardio, we'll say anything from brisk walking to jogging and throw in all the usual cardio equipment like treadmills, elliptical trainers and steppers. To keep it within the long slow distance realm, we'll say our heart rates need to stay around 70% of our max (220-age) x 7.
However, if you use those somewhat narrow definitions, you then have to face some harsh facts.
Neither of these quite typical routines is all that great for burning fat.
Resistance training mavens will tell you that you need lean muscle to burn fat and therefore weight training is superior.
They will not tell you that it will take you several months of this training to build enough muscle to have a meaningful impact on your fat burning abilities.
Some will even cite the after burn effect, but frankly there is not much of that in this type of training either. An hour of this type of training will burn around 300 to 400 calories during exercise and if you hit it hard maybe another 50 to 100 calories in after burn.
Cardio buffs will tell you that by keeping your heart rate in the 70% max range you are in the "fat burning zone" and if you run on a treadmill at 6 m.p.h. with a little incline you'll burn 600 calories, the bulk of them from fat.
This is true but you'll have very little after burn from this type of long slow cardio.
Now here is the key: intensity.
If you push very hard through your weight training routines and keep your heart rate up in the 85 to 90% range, you will have increased calorie burn during exercise and after.
Same with your cardio. If you throw in intervals of speed running on the treadmill for 1 to 2 minutes with 1 to 2 minutes of recovery at the 70% max heart rate range, you'll be practicing interval training and get some of the best fat burning you can have.
If you do strength training and interval training either separately or together in what is known as a circuit interval ala www.downunderstrength.com/ you will have the best of both worlds and the best most efficient fat burning anyone can give you!
Doc
The real answer is that it depends on your definitions of cardio and weight training.
Once these are established, there really is no controversy.
For opening arguments, let's define each of them in a traditional manner.
We'll say weight training is a typical hypertrophy/strength program centered on barbells and dumbbells with the desired end result being to build lean muscle as opposed to pure strength (low reps/high weights) or neuromuscular strength and coordination as in Olympic weight lifting.
In this definition, we can include some power moves like squats, bench presses, lat pull downs, bent over rows, biceps and triceps work, and even a few compound moves like power cleans or clean and presses. We'll set our rep range to 12 and do 3 to 4 sets of each for a total time of one hour, 3 to 4 times a week.
Split routines fit nicely into this definition.
For cardio, we'll say anything from brisk walking to jogging and throw in all the usual cardio equipment like treadmills, elliptical trainers and steppers. To keep it within the long slow distance realm, we'll say our heart rates need to stay around 70% of our max (220-age) x 7.
However, if you use those somewhat narrow definitions, you then have to face some harsh facts.
Neither of these quite typical routines is all that great for burning fat.
Resistance training mavens will tell you that you need lean muscle to burn fat and therefore weight training is superior.
They will not tell you that it will take you several months of this training to build enough muscle to have a meaningful impact on your fat burning abilities.
Some will even cite the after burn effect, but frankly there is not much of that in this type of training either. An hour of this type of training will burn around 300 to 400 calories during exercise and if you hit it hard maybe another 50 to 100 calories in after burn.
Cardio buffs will tell you that by keeping your heart rate in the 70% max range you are in the "fat burning zone" and if you run on a treadmill at 6 m.p.h. with a little incline you'll burn 600 calories, the bulk of them from fat.
This is true but you'll have very little after burn from this type of long slow cardio.
Now here is the key: intensity.
If you push very hard through your weight training routines and keep your heart rate up in the 85 to 90% range, you will have increased calorie burn during exercise and after.
Same with your cardio. If you throw in intervals of speed running on the treadmill for 1 to 2 minutes with 1 to 2 minutes of recovery at the 70% max heart rate range, you'll be practicing interval training and get some of the best fat burning you can have.
If you do strength training and interval training either separately or together in what is known as a circuit interval ala www.downunderstrength.com/ you will have the best of both worlds and the best most efficient fat burning anyone can give you!
Doc
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
